Geotechnical Report

Transcription

Geotechnical Report

Terraprobe
Consulting Geotechnical & Environmental Engineering
Construction Materials Inspection & Testing
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED DIGESTER AND BIOGAS FACILITY
TORONTO ZOO
Prepared For:
ZooShare Biogas Cooperative Inc.
c/o Riepma Consultants Inc.
13041 Highway 7
Georgetown, Ontario
L7G 4S4
Attention:
Mr. Clare Riepma
File No. 11-13-3145
December 18, 2013
© Terraprobe Inc.
Distribution:
1 Copy
1 Copy
- Riepma Consultants Inc.
- Terraprobe Inc.
Terraprobe Inc.
Greater Toronto
11 Indell Lane
Brampton, Ontario L6T 3Y3
(905) 796-2650 Fax: 796-2250
Hamilton – Niagara
Central Ontario
903 Barton Street, Unit 22
220 Bayview Drive, Unit 25
Stoney Creek, Ontario L8E 5P5 Barrie, Ontario L4N 4Y8
(905) 643-7560 Fax: 643-7559
(705) 739-8355 Fax: 739-8369
www.terraprobe.ca
Northern Ontario
1012 Kelly Lake Rd., Unit 1
Sudbury, Ontario P3E 5P4
(705) 670-0460 Fax: 670-0558
ZooShare Biogas Cooperative Inc. c/o Riepma Consultants Inc.
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0
SUBSURFACE AND SITE CONDITIONS..........................................................................1
2.1
2.2
3.0
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ................................................................................................4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.0
FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Raft Foundations........................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Conventional Spread or Ring Footings.......................................................... 6
3.1.3 Other Foundation Considerations ................................................................. 6
EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS .......................................................................... 7
EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 8
SLAB ON GRADE DESIGN PARAMETERS .....................................................................10
SITE SERVICING .......................................................................................................10
3.5.1 Backfill .........................................................................................................10
3.5.2 Bedding .......................................................................................................11
PAVEMENT DESIGN ..................................................................................................11
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY .............................................14
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.0
STRATIGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Topsoil and Earth Fill .................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Cohesionless Native Soils ............................................................................. 2
2.1.3 Cohesive Glacial Till ..................................................................................... 2
2.1.4 Cohesionless Glacial Till ............................................................................... 3
GROUND W ATER ....................................................................................................... 3
EXCAVATIONS ..........................................................................................................14
GROUND W ATER CONTROL ......................................................................................15
SITE W ORK ..............................................................................................................15
QUALITY CONTROL ...................................................................................................16
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT ............................................................................16
5.1
5.2
5.3
PROCEDURES ..........................................................................................................16
CHANGES IN SITE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................17
USE OF REPORT ......................................................................................................18
Terraprobe
Page No. i
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 -
SITE LOCATION PLAN
BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D -
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOGS
TEST PIT LOGS
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS
PAVEMENT DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES
Page No. ii
Toronto Zoo
1.0
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
INTRODUCTION
Terraprobe Inc. was retained by ZooShare Biogas Cooperative Inc. c/o Riepma Consultants Inc. to
conduct a subsurface investigation for the proposed Digester and Biogas facility at the Toronto Zoo. The
site is generally located south of Zoo Road and east of Meadowvale Road, just south of an overflow
parking area for the Toronto Zoo. A site location plan is provided as Figure 1.
The site currently consists of gravel roadways and compost piles with grass areas to the south. The
proposed facility has a storage tank that will be 39 metres in diameter, a storage tank and a digester tank
that will both be 21 metres in diameter, and eight smaller structures including an engine room, a
separation pad, hydrolysis tanks, and pasteurizer tanks. It is understood that the tanks will all be 6 metres
in total height and will extend 1.5 to 2 metres below grade.
The subsurface conditions were determined by advancing a total of six (6) boreholes and six (6) test pits
within the footprints of the proposed structures on October 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 2013. Review of a previous
geotechnical investigation at the site revealed a soft layer of clayey soil underlying the upper cohesionless
deposits. The scope of work changed from the original proposal to investigate the underlying soft layer
and analyse the potential for settlement. The change was confirmed on September 25, 2013 by Clare
Riepma and involved quantifying the thickness of the layer and collecting relatively undisturbed samples
of the soil for one-dimensional consolidation testing. The locations of the boreholes and test pits are
provided as Figure 2.
Based on the information secured from this investigation; interpretation, analysis and advice with respect
to the geotechnical engineering aspects of the proposed facility are provided. The anticipated construction
conditions pertaining to excavation, foundation construction, groundwater control, and backfilling are
discussed with regard to how the project design may be influenced.
2.0
SUBSURFACE AND SITE CONDITIONS
The results of the individual boreholes and test pits advanced are recorded on the Borehole Logs and Test
Pit Logs in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. The Test Pit Logs are from the Terraprobe
hydrogeological investigation at the site (File No. 13-13-3142). A summary of the geotechnical
laboratory tests are provided in Appendix C. The borehole locations and ground surface elevations were
surveyed by reference to the topographic plan provided to Terraprobe by Riepma Consultants Inc.: “Plan
Illustrating Topographic Detail”, Reference No. 1513-2GRID, and Dated August 20, 2013, by Dolliver
Surveying Inc. These elevations are provided for the purpose of relating borehole stratigraphy and should
not be relied on for other purposes. Locations are provided relative to the Universal Transverse Mercator
geographical coordinate system (UTM Zone 17).
Terraprobe
Page No. 1
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
The boundaries between the various strata represent an inferred transition rather than a precise plane of
geological change. This summary is intended to correlate this data to assist in the interpretation of the
subsurface conditions at the site. Refer to the enclosed Borehole Logs and Test Pit Logs, in Appendix A
and Appendix B, for more specific subsurface details.
2.1
Stratigraphy
The following stratigraphy is based on the Terraprobe borehole and test pit findings as well as on the
geotechnical laboratory testing conducted on selected representative soil samples. It should be noted that
the subsurface conditions are confirmed at the borehole and test pit locations only, and may vary at other
locations.
2.1.1
Topsoil and Earth Fill
Topsoil was encountered in Boreholes 3 and 6 and varied between 75 to 90 mm in thickness. Earth fill
was encountered underlying the topsoil in Boreholes 3 and 6 and from surface in Boreholes 1, 2, 4, and 5
and extended to a depth of 1.5 m below grade (Elev. 130.1 to 129.4 ± m). Earth fill was encountered in
each test pit and extended to depths of 0.6 to 1.1 m below grade (Elev. 130.6 to 130.2 ± m). The earth fill
comprises silty sand to sand with some silt and contains trace gravel, trace clay, trace to some organics,
and trace rootlets. It was observed to be brown to black with some orange and moist.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results (N-Values) measured in the earth fill ranged from 10 to 38 blows
per 300 mm of penetration indicating a compact to dense (but generally compact) relative density.
2.1.2
Cohesionless Native Soils
Cohesionless native soils were encountered underlying the earth fill in each borehole and test pit location,
comprising sand with some silt and trace gravel to sand and silt with trace gravel. They were brown
turning grey with depth and wet. The deposits were encountered 0.6 to 1.5 m below grade (Elev. 130.6 to
129.4 ± m) and extended 3.1 to 6.1 m (Elev. 128.6 to 125.2 ± m) below grade in the boreholes. The test
pits terminated in these deposits at depths of 2.5 to 3.1 m (Elev. 129.0 to 128.2 ± m) below grade.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results (N-Values) measured in the sands to sands and silts ranged from
21 to 58 blows per 300 mm of penetration indicating a compact to very dense (but generally dense)
relative density.
2.1.3
Cohesive Glacial Till
Underlying the cohesionless deposits, the boreholes encountered cohesive glacial till with a matrix of
clayey and sandy silt with trace gravel. In Borehole 3 the deposit varied to clay and silt glacial till and in
Borehole 6 the deposit was encountered underlying a 1.2 metre thick cohesionless glacial till deposit.
Borehole 1 terminated in the deposit at 6.6 m (Elev. 125.0 ± m) below grade. In the other boreholes, the
Terraprobe
Page No. 2
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
deposit extended to 6.1 to 12.2 m (Elev. 125.1 to 119.1 ± m) below grade. It was grey and moist to wet.
The thickness of this layer varies from about 2.5 m in Borehole 3 to about 6 m in Boreholes 2 and 5.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results (N-Values) measured in the till ranged from 2 to 13 blows per
300 mm of penetration indicating a soft to stiff (but generally firm) consistency. In situ shear vane testing
indicates that the deposit at one location has an undrained shear strength of about 100 kPa. Laboratory
shear vane testing from one of the Shelby tube samples indicates an undrained shear strength of about 40
kPa.
From within this generally firm and compressible glacial till deposit, two relatively undisturbed soil
samples were collected in Borehole 6 and Borehole 3 to conduct laboratory one-dimensional
consolidation tests. Tests were conducted on Shelby Tube 2 from Borehole 6 and Shelby Tube 1 from
Borehole 3. The results are included in Appendix C.
2.1.4
Cohesionless Glacial Till
In Boreholes 2 to 6, cohesionless glacial till was encountered underlying the cohesive and compressible
glacial till. Borehole 6 also encountered cohesionless glacial till overlying the cohesive till from 3.4 to
4.6 metres below grade (Elev. 127.5 to 126.3 metres). The deposit generally has a matrix of sand and silt
with some clay and trace gravel and are grey and moist. The boreholes terminated in the deposit at depths
of 11.3 to 15.7 m (Elev. 120.0 to 115.2 ± m) below grade.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results (N-Values) measured in the glacial till ranged from 8 to 58 blows
per 300 mm of penetration indicating a loose to very dense (but generally compact to dense) relative
density.
A 1.5 m thick deposit of sand and silt with trace clay and trace gravel was encountered between the
glacial till deposits in Borehole 3 (Elev. 127.4 to 125.1 ± m). It was observed to be grey and wet. The
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) result (N-Value) measured was 14, indicating a compact relative density.
2.2
Ground Water
Unstabilized ground water level observations were made in each of the boreholes as they were drilled and
after completion, which are noted on the enclosed borehole logs. Unstabilized ground water levels were
also made in each test pit as they were excavated and are noted on the enclosed test pit logs. Four (4) 50
mm diameter monitoring wells were installed within Boreholes 1, 3 (shallow and deep), and 5 to facilitate
stabilized ground water level monitoring across the site. The water levels within the wells are summarized
below.
Terraprobe
Page No. 3
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
Borehole
No.
Water Level in Well
on Oct. 10, 2013
Depth / Elevation (m)
Water Level in Well
on Oct. 31, 2013
Depth / Elevation (m)
1
2.1 / 129.5
3.0 / 129.6
3 (Shallow)
1.3 / 129.9
1.2 / 130.0
3 (Deep)
14.5 / 116.7
8.3 / 122.9
5
3.0 / 128.4
2.3 / 129.1
Based on the above measurements, there is perched ground water above the cohesive glacial till across the
site between Elev. 128.4 to 130.0 ± metres. The unstabilized water levels measured in the test pits
ranged from Elev. 128.6 to 129.1 ± metres.
In the underlying cohesionless till, the stabilized
groundwater level is 122.9 ± metres. The earth fill and upper cohesionless native deposits will allow free
flow of water into open excavations. It should be noted that regrading of the site, construction dewatering
and seasonal fluctuations may cause changes to the depth of the water table over time.
3.0
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
The following discussion and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from this
investigation and are intended for use by the owner and the design engineer. Contractors bidding or
providing services on this project should review the factual data and determine their own conclusions
regarding construction methods and scheduling.
This report is provided on the basis of these terms of reference and on the assumption that the design
features relevant to the geotechnical analyses will be in accordance with applicable codes, standards and
guidelines of practice. If there are any changes to the site development features or any additional
information relevant to the interpretations made of the subsurface information with respect to the
geotechnical analyses or other recommendations, then Terraprobe should be retained to review the
implications of these changes with respect to the contents of this report.
The proposed facility has a storage tank that will be 39 metres in diameter, a storage tank and a digester
tank that will both be 21 metres in diameter, and eight smaller structures including an engine room, a
separation pad, hydrolysis tanks, and pasteurizer tanks. It is understood that the tanks will all be 6 metres
in total height and will extend 1.5 to 2 metres below grade.
Terraprobe
Page No. 4
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
The undisturbed native stratigraphy beneath the site where the foundations will bear predominately
consists of dense cohesionless deposits. Free-flowing ground water is present in the upper cohesionless
deposits and groundwater control during construction, which is required prior to excavation, is discussed
in Section 4.2.
3.1
Foundation Design Parameters
The tank structures can either be supported using raft foundations or ring foundations in conjunction with
conventional spread footing foundations. The small buildings in the northwest portion of the site can be
supported using conventional spread footing foundations.
3.1.1
Raft Foundations
The existing topsoil and earth fill are not suitable to support foundations for the all structures in the
proposed facility and must be removed prior to construction. The raft foundations must bear on the native
soils encountered between 0.6 to 1.5 m below grade (Elev. 130.6 to 129.4 ± m), however it is understood
that raft foundations will be set between 1.5 and 2.0 m below existing grades. Raft foundations made at
1.5 to 2.0 m below grade set on undisturbed native soils may be designed using a maximum factored
geotechnical resistance of 300 kPa at Ultimate Limit States (ULS).
Total and differential settlements caused primarily by consolidation due to the compressible cohesive
deposit encountered 3.1 to 6.1 m below grade (Elev. 128.6 to 124.0 ± m) were analysed for the various
tank structures within the proposed facility. The thickness of this layer varies from approximately 2.5 to 6
metres in the boreholes. The net pressures acting on the bearing soil stratum were calculated to be
between 20 and 45 kPa based on embedment depths of 1.5 and 2.0 m below existing grade and 6 m of
fluids in the tanks with an assumed unit weight varying between 10 and 12 kN/m3. These applied
pressures will act on the compressible layer due to the deep zone of influence of raft foundations.
Consolidation laboratory tests were conducted on two relatively undisturbed samples collected during the
investigation (Borehole 3, Shelby Tube 1 and Borehole 6, Shelby Tube 2). The results of these tests are
provided in Appendix C. Based on the results of the consolidation tests, and the thickness of compressible
soil from the boreholes, a summary of the anticipated total and differential settlements for raft foundations
is provided immediately below.
Proposed Structure
Estimated Total Settlement due
to Structure Loads (mm)
Estimated Differential Settlement
due to Structure Loads (mm)
Relevant
Boreholes
Storage Tank, 19.5 m Radius
10 - 40
up to 25
4, 5, 6
Storage Tank, 10.5 m Radius
10 - 30
up to 20
3, 4, 6
Digester Tank, 10.5 m Radius
10 - 40
up to 30
2, 3, 4
Hydrolysis and Pasteurizer
Tanks (3.0 to 4.6 m Radii)
20 - 40
up to 10
2
Terraprobe
Page No. 5
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
It is important to note that differential settlement can damage utilities where they connect to a structure.
The total estimated settlement at each individual borehole location is summarized in the table below.
3.1.2
Borehole
Approximate Thickness of
Compressible Soil (m)
Estimated Total Settlement at
Borehole Location due to Raft
Structure Loads (mm)
6
3.5
10 - 20
5
6.0
20 - 40
4
4.5
15 - 30
3
2.5
10 - 15
2
6.0
20 - 40
1
n/a
No rafts in this location
Conventional Spread or Ring Footings
An alternative to raft foundations are conventional spread footings and ring footings for the tank
structures. Small structures such as the engine, control and education rooms in the northwest portion of
the site are to be founded using conventional spread footing foundations.
The existing topsoil and earth fill are not suitable to support conventional spread or ring footings and
must be removed prior to construction. The footing foundations must bear on the native soils encountered
between 0.6 to 1.5 m below grade (Elev. 130.6 to 129.4 ± m). Conventional spread footing or ring
footings may be designed using a maximum geotechnical reaction of 200 kPa at Serviceability Limit
States (SLS) for up to 25 mm of settlement, and a maximum factored geotechnical resistance of 300 kPa
at Ultimate Limit States (ULS). The maximum length and width that the spread footings may be designed
with is 3.0 metres for settlements of 25 mm or less. If spread / ring footing foundations are set lower than
2 m below existing grade, the above recommendations may not apply and Terraprobe must be retained to
review the bearing capacity recommendations.
3.1.3
Other Foundation Considerations
The elevations provided are approximate and must be confirmed at the time of construction. All
excavated footing bases must be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical engineer to ensure that the
founding soils exposed at the excavation base are consistent with the design bearing pressure intended by
the geotechnical engineer.
Prior to pouring concrete for the footings, the footing subgrade should be cleaned of all deleterious
materials such as topsoil, fill, softened, disturbed or caved materials, as well as any standing water. If
construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the
footing bases and concrete must be provided.
Terraprobe
Page No. 6
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
It should be noted that the native soils tend to weather and deteriorate on exposure to the atmosphere or
surface water, hence, foundation bases which remain open for an extended period of time should be
protected by a skim coat of lean concrete.
Foundations or grade beams exposed to ambient air temperature throughout the year must be provided
with a minimum of 1.2 m of earth cover for frost protection, or equivalent insulation.
It must be noted that substantial changes to the groundwater regime can occur due to seasonal
fluctuations, construction dewatering and regrading. It is recommended that water levels are measured in
the existing monitoring wells before construction begins such that the recommendations provided in this
report can be utilized.
3.2
Earthquake Design Parameters
The Ontario Building Code (2006) stipulates the methodology for earthquake design analysis, as set out
in Subsection 4.1.8.7. The determination of the type of analysis is predicated on the importance of the
structure, the spectral response acceleration and the site classification.
The parameters for determination of Site Classification for Seismic Site Response are set out in Table
4.1.8.4A of the Ontario Building Code (2006). The classification is based on the determination of the
average shear wave velocity in the top 30 metres of the site stratigraphy, where shear wave velocity (vs)
measurements have been taken. Alternatively, the classification is estimated on the basis of rational
analysis of undrained shear strength (su) or penetration resistance (N-values).
n
n
υs −avg =
∑d
i
i =1
n
d
∑υ
i =1
Shear wave
velocity
S u −avg =
∑d i
i =1
n
i
si
di
∑
i =1 s u i
Undrained
shear strength
n
N avg =
∑d
i =1
n
di
∑N
i =1
i
i
SPT N-values
Below the surficial earth fill, there exists generally dense deposits of sands to sands and silts. A generally
firm deposit of glacial till underlies the sands and a generally compact to dense deposit of glacial till
extends beyond to an assumed depth of 30 metres. Based on the above noted information, it is
recommended that the site designation for seismic analysis is Class D as per Table 4.1.8.4.A of the
Ontario Building Code (2006). Tables 4.1.8.4.B and 4.1.8.4.C. of the same code provide the applicable
acceleration and velocity based site coefficients.
Terraprobe
Page No. 7
Toronto Zoo
Site Class
D
Values of Fa
Sa(0.2) ≤ 0.25
Sa(0.2) = 0.50
Sa(0.2) = 0.75
Sa(0.2) = 1.00
Sa(0.2)≥ 1.25
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
Site Class
D
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
Values of Fv
Sa(1.0) ≤ 0.25
Sa(1.0) = 0.50
Sa(1.0) = 0.75
Sa(1.0) = 1.00
Sa(1.0)≥ 1.25
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
It should be noted that the above seismic site designation is estimated on the basis of rational analysis of
penetration resistance (N-values) with assumed N-values (assuming a relative density/consistency for the
deeper soil stratigraphy beyond the investigation depth similar to that of the lowest soil strata penetrated
within the investigation depth).
Consideration may be given to conduct a site specific Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
for the facility to determine the average shear wave velocity in the top 30 metres of the site stratigraphy.
An improved seismic site designation (typically C) may be obtained based on the direct measurement of
the average shear wave velocity in the top 30 metres of the site stratigraphy.
3.3
Earth Pressure Design Considerations
The parameters used in the determination of earth pressures acting on retaining walls are defined below.
Parameter
Definition
Units
φ
internal angle of friction
degrees
γ
bulk unit weight of soil
kN / m
Ka
active earth pressure coefficient (Rankin)
dimensionless
Ko
at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Rankin)
dimensionless
Kp
passive earth pressure coefficient (Rankin)
dimensionless
3
The appropriate values for use in the design of structures subject to unbalanced earth pressures at this site
are tabulated as follows:
Terraprobe
Page No. 8
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
Stratum/Parameter
φ
γ
Ka
Ko
Kp
Compact Granular Fill
Granular ‘B’ (OPSS 1010)
32
21.0
0.31
0.47
3.25
Existing Earth Fill
30
19.0
0.33
0.50
3.00
Sands and Silts (Cohesionless Deposits)
32
20.5
0.31
0.47
3.25
Compressible Clayey Stratum
26
19.5
0.39
0.56
2.56
Glacial Till
32
21.5
0.31
0.47
3.25
Walls subject to unbalanced earth pressures must be designed to resist a pressure that can be calculated
based on the following equation:
where,
P=
K [γ (h-hw) + γ’hw + q] + γwhw
P =
K =
hw =
γ =
γ’ =
q=
the horizontal pressure at depth, h (m)
the earth pressure coefficient,
the depth below the groundwater level (m)
the bulk unit weight of soil, ( kN/m3 )
the submerged unit weight of the exterior soil, ( γ - 9.8 kN/m3 )
the complete surcharge loading (kPa)
Where the wall backfill can be drained effectively to eliminate hydrostatic pressures on the wall, acting in
conjunction with the earth pressure, this equation can be simplified to:
P=
K[γh + q]
This equation assumes that free-draining granular backfill such as Granular ‘B’ (OPSS 1010) is used and
effective drainage is provided. Consideration must also be given to the possible effects of frost on
structures retaining earth. Pressures induced by freezing in frost-susceptible soils exert pressures and are
effectively irresistible.
Resistance to sliding of earth retaining structures is developed by friction between the base of the footing
and the soil. This friction ( R ) depends on the normal load on the soil contact (N) and the frictional
resistance of the soil (tan φ) expressed as: R = N tan φ. This is an unfactored resistance. The factored
geotechnical resistance at ULS is Rf = 0.8 N tan φ.
Terraprobe
Page No. 9
Toronto Zoo
3.4
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
Slab on Grade Design Parameters
All topsoil and deleterious material must be removed prior to constructing a slab on grade for the facility.
It is anticipated that at some locations a slab will bear on earth fill. The earth fill is to be proof rolled with
a 10-tonne static smooth drum roller and inspected by a geotechnical engineer. Any identified weak areas
or areas containing an excess amount of organics or moisture shall be sub-excavated and replaced with
clean earth fill or Granular B (OPSS 1010) compacted to a minimum of 98 percent SPMDD under
controlled conditions. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 18,000 kPa/m may be used in this situation.
The native deposits underlying the earth fill encountered at this site constitute an adequate subgrade for
support of a slab on grade. The modulus of subgrade reaction appropriate for design of the slab resting on
the undisturbed native soil is 30,000 kPa/m.
For slab on grade structures with no below grade space, provided the finish floor level of the structure is
at least 200 mm above the outside design grade in the vicinity of the building, and the site is graded to
promote drainage away from the building, subfloor drainage provisions are not required.
It is necessary that building floor slabs be provided with a capillary moisture barrier and drainage layer.
This is made by placing the slab on a minimum 200 mm layer of HL8 coarse aggregate compacted by
vibration to a dense state. Where the drainage layer is in contact with a sand or silt subgrade, it must be
separated from the subgrade using a non-woven geotextile (Terrafix 360 R, or alternative as approved by
the geotechnical engineer). Perimeter and subfloor drainage is required for all below grade space.
Provision of nominal subfloor drainage is required in conjunction with the perimeter drainage of the
structure to collect and remove the water that infiltrates under the floor. The ground surface directly
adjacent to the structure should be graded at 2% or greater away from the structure for a minimum 1.2 m.
3.5
Site Servicing
When designing site servicing, the engineering consultant must be informed of the potential for
differential settlements across the site, as discussed in Section 3.1.3. Differential settlements can be
detrimental to the performance and function of site utilities.
3.5.1
Backfill
The existing topsoil and earth fill materials containing excessive amounts of organics and deleterious
materials should not be reused as backfill in settlement sensitive areas, such as beneath floor slabs and
pavements. However, these materials may be stockpiled and reused for landscaping purposes. The earth
fill materials with only trace amounts of organic inclusions should be utilized as backfill. The selection
and sorting of fill materials should be conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer.
Terraprobe
Page No. 10
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
The undisturbed native soils and clean earth fill are considered suitable for backfilling purposes provided
these soils are within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Any soil materials with three percent or
higher in-situ moisture content than its optimum moisture content could be put aside to dry, or be tilled to
reduce the moisture content so that it can be effectively compacted. Alternatively, materials of higher
moisture content could be wasted and replaced with imported material which can be readily compacted.
In settlement sensitive areas, the backfill should consist of clean earth and should be placed in lifts of
150mm thicknesses or less, and heavily compacted to a minimum of 98 percent SPMDD at a water
content close to (within three percent of the) optimum.
3.5.2
Bedding
The undisturbed native soils and the earth fill materials (deemed suitable to the geotechnical engineer)
compacted to a minimum of 98 percent SPMDD will provide adequate support for buried services on a
conventional well graded granular base material. Where disturbance of the trench base has occurred, such
as due to groundwater seepage or construction traffic, the disturbed soils should be subexcavated and
replaced with suitably compacted granular fill.
Granular bedding material should consist of a conventional Class ‘B’ bedding such as Granular ‘A’
conforming to OPSS 1010 specification. The bedding material should be compacted to a minimum of 95
percent SPMDD. The use of clear stone bedding such as HL8 coarse aggregate (sewer stone) or 19 mm
clear stone (OPSS 1004) can also be acceptable, however only in conjunction with suitable geotextile
filter (Terrafix 360 R or alternative as approved by the geotechnical engineer) on cohesionless soil (silt,
sand, etc.) subgrade; otherwise without proper filtering, there may be entry of fines from the surrounding
soils into the bedding. This loss of ground could result in a loss of support to the pipes and possible
future settlements. Clear stone bedding material should be vibrated to a dense state. The bedding
material should conform to the pertinent City Specifications.
3.6
Pavement Design
The earth fill on site may be considered suitable as pavement subgrade provided it is proof-rolled and any
loose, soft, wet or unstable areas identified are sub-excavated, and backfilled with clean earth fill placed
in 150 mm thick lifts and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent SPMDD.
The earth fill materials and native soils encountered on the site may be utilized for subgrade preparation
provided they do not contain excessive amounts of organics and deleterious materials, as well as their insitu moisture content is within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. The reuse of the existing fill
materials will require selection and sorting under the guidance of a geotechnical engineer.
A performance pavement design is provided which will deliver an estimated service period of about 16 to
20 years.
Terraprobe
Page No. 11
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
Performance Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Structure
Pavement Layer
Surface Course Asphaltic
Concrete:
HL3 (OPSS 1150) with PG 58-28
Asphalt Cement (OPSS 1101)
Compaction
Requirements
Light-Duty Minimum
Component Thickness
Heavy-Duty Minimum
Component Thickness
OPSS 310
40 mm
40 mm
OPSS 310
50 mm
80 mm
100% Standard
Proctor Maximum Dry
Density (ASTM-D698)
150 mm
150 mm
100% Standard
Proctor Maximum Dry
Density (ASTM- D698)
300 mm
450 mm
Base Course Asphaltic Concrete:
Base Course:
Granular A (OPSS 1010) or 19mm
Crusher Run Limestone
Subbase Course:
Granular B Type I (OPSS 1010) or
50mm Crusher Run Limestone
A minimal pavement design is also provided, which will provide an estimated service period of about 8 to
10 years. The cost of the minimal pavement design should be compared to the performance design which
could be expected to last about twice as long before significant maintenance and rehabilitation.
Minimal Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Structure
Pavement Layer
Surface Course Asphaltic
Concrete:
Compaction
Requirements
Light-Duty Minimum
Component Thickness
Heavy-Duty Minimum
Component Thickness
OPSS 310
65 mm*
40 mm
OPSS 310
N/A
50 mm
100% Standard
Proctor Maximum Dry
Density (ASTM-D698)
150 mm
150 mm
100% Standard
Proctor Maximum Dry
Density (ASTM- D698)
200 mm
350 mm
Base Course Asphaltic Concrete:
Base Course:
Subbase Course:
Granular B Type I (OPSS 1010) or
50mm Crusher Run Limestone
* a 40 mm thick HL3 and 50 mm HL8 asphalt courses may be used if a staged construction is considered for the pavement areas.
The granular materials should be placed in lifts 150 mm thick or less and be compacted to a minimum of
100 percent SPMDD for granular base and granular sub-base. Asphalt materials should be rolled and
compacted as per OPSS 310. The granular and asphalt pavement materials and their placement should
conform to OPSS Forms 310, 501, 1010 and 1150 and pertinent City specifications. It is recommended to
Terraprobe
Page No. 12
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
use higher grade of asphalt cement (PGAC 64-28) for asphaltic concrete where applicable, particularly in
the areas of intense truck turning and loading docks.
Alternatively, consideration may also be given to the use of rigid Portland Cement concrete pavement
where there is intense truck use, and turning of transport vehicles in conjunction with the waste handling,
loading docks or delivery facilities. The following table provides the minimum recommended rigid
pavement structure:
Minimum Rigid Concrete Pavement Structure
Pavement Layer
Portland Cement Concrete Surface
(CSA A23.1 Class C-2)
Base Course:
Compaction
Requirements
Heavy-Duty Minimum
Component Thickness
CSA A23.1
225 mm
100% Standard
Proctor Maximum Dry
Density (ASTM-D698)
200 mm
It must be noted that this structure does not provide full protection of the subgrade from frost penetration;
therefore, the pavement slabs must be separated from building structures.
Control of surface water is an important factor in achieving a good pavement life. The need for adequate
subgrade drainage cannot be over-emphasized. The subgrade must be free of depressions and sloped
(preferably at a minimum grade of 2 percent) to provide effective drainage toward subgrade drains.
Grading adjacent to pavement areas should be designed to ensure that water is not allowed to pond
adjacent to the outside edges of the pavement. Continuous pavement subdrains should be provided along
both sides of the driveway/access routes and drained into respective catchbasins to facilitate drainage of
the subgrade and the granular materials. The subdrain invert should be maintained at least 0.3 m below
subgrade level. Continuous subdrains should also be provided for the parking lot/driveway pavement
areas along the curb-lines/sidewalk and at all catchbasins within the parking areas (Appendix D).
The concrete surface sidewalk and entrance slabs (near flush-doors) must be supported on a minimum of
1.2m thick non-frost susceptible material (Granular “A” & “B”, OPSS 1010) provided with a provision of
a subdrain with positive outlet to help minimize slab heave due to freezing weather conditions.
The above pavement design thicknesses are considered adequate for the design traffic. However, if the
pavement construction occurs in wet, winter or inclement weather, it may be necessary to provide
additional subgrade support for heavy construction traffic by increasing the thickness of the granular subbase, base or both. Further, traffic areas for construction equipment may experience unstable subgrade
conditions. These areas may be stabilized utilizing additional thickness of granular materials.
The long-term performance of the pavement structure is highly dependent upon the subgrade support
conditions. Stringent construction control procedures must be maintained to ensure that uniform
Terraprobe
Page No. 13
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved as much as possible when fill is placed, and the
natural subgrade is not disturbed or weakened after it is exposed.
It should be noted that in addition to adherence of the above pavement design recommendations, a close
control on the pavement construction process will also be required in order to obtain the desired pavement
life. Therefore, it is recommended that regular inspection and testing should be conducted during the
pavement construction to confirm material quality, thickness, and to ensure adequate compaction.
4.0
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY
4.1
Excavations
Excavations must be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and
Regulations for Construction Projects, November 1993 (Part III - Excavations, Section 222 through 242).
These regulations designate four (4) broad classifications of soils to stipulate appropriate measures for
excavation safety. The earth fill and cohesionless native deposits beneath this site are Type 3 soils above
the ground water level and Type 4 soils below the ground water level. Due to perched water, the earth fill
and cohesionless native deposits are considered Type 4 soils.
Where workers must enter excavations advanced deeper than 1.2 m, the trench walls should be suitably
sloped and/or braced in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for
Construction Projects. The regulation stipulates maximum slopes of excavation by soil type as follows:
Soil Type
Base of Slope
Maximum Slope Inclination
1
within 1.2 metres of bottom of trench
1 horizontal to 1 vertical
2
within 1.2 metres of bottom of trench
3
from bottom of trench
4
from bottom of trench
Minimum support system requirements for steeper excavations are stipulated in the Occupational Health
and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects, and include provisions for timbering, shoring
and moveable trench boxes.
It must be noted that larger size particles (cobbles and boulders) that are not specifically identified in the
boreholes may be present in the native soil deposit. The size and distribution of such obstructions cannot
be predicted with borings, because the borehole sampler size is insufficient to secure representative
samples of particles of this size. Provision must be made in the excavation contracts to allocate risks
associated with the time spent and equipment utilized to remove or penetrate such obstructions when
encountered.
Terraprobe
Page No. 14
Toronto Zoo
4.2
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
Ground Water Control
It is understood the proposed storage and digester tanks will extend 1.5 to 2.0 m below grade and all
trenches will be reasonably shallow with the exception of trenches for water lines which will have about 2
metres of coverage for frost protection. The earth fill and upper cohesionless sands and silts encountered
at the site will produce free flowing water when penetrated. In the long term, the water levels measured in
the monitoring wells installed at the site indicate that the ground water table is close to or above the
proposed excavation depths. Therefore, it is anticipated there will be seepage into the excavations.
If excavations extend to depths greater than 0.3 m below prevailing ground water table, it will be
necessary to lower the ground water level to about 1.2 m below the excavation base prior to, and maintain
it during the subsurface construction. Please refer to Terraprobe’s hydrogeological report (File No. 13-133142-6) for this site for specific recommendations regarding ground water control.
It is recommended to consult a professional dewatering contractor to review the subsurface conditions and
to design a site specific dewatering system. It is the dewatering contractor’s responsibility to make an
assessment of the factual data and to provide recommendations on dewatering system requirements.
4.3
Site Work
The native soils near surface and at the nominal excavation depth at this site will become disturbed and
may lose their integrity when subjected to traffic, particularly when wet. It can be expected that a
subgrade made in the native soils will be disturbed unless an adequate granular working surface is
provided to protect the integrity of the subgrade soils from construction traffic. Subgrade preparation
works cannot be adequately accomplished during wet weather and the project must be scheduled
accordingly. The disturbance caused by the traffic can result in the removal of disturbed soil and use of
granular fill material for site restoration or underfloor fill that is not intrinsic to the project requirements.
The most severe loading conditions on the subgrade may occur during construction. Consequently,
special provisions such as end dumping and forward spreading of earth and aggregate fills, restricted
construction lanes, and half-loads during paving and other work may be required, especially if
construction is carried out during unfavourable weather.
If construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the
founding subgrade and concrete must be provided. The soil at this site is susceptible to frost damage.
Consideration must be given to frost effects, such as heave or softening, on exposed soil surfaces in the
context of this particular project development.
Terraprobe
Page No. 15
Toronto Zoo
4.4
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
Quality Control
The on-site review of the condition of the foundation soil as the foundations are constructed is an integral
part of the geotechnical design function and is required by Section 4.2.2.2 of the Ontario Building Code
2006 for commercial and industrial developments. If Terraprobe is not retained to carry out foundation
evaluations during construction, then Terraprobe accepts no responsibility for the performance or nonperformance of the foundations, even if they are ostensibly constructed in accordance with the design
advice contained in this report.
The long term performance of any slab is highly dependent upon the subgrade support conditions.
Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure that uniform subgrade moisture
and density conditions are achieved as much as practically possible. The design advice in this report is
based on an assessment of the subgrade support capabilities as indicated by the borings. These conditions
may vary across the site depending on the final design grades and therefore, the preparation of the
subgrade and the compaction of all fill should be monitored by Terraprobe at the time of construction to
confirm material quality, thickness, and to ensure adequate compaction.
The requirements for fill placement on this project have been stipulated relative to Standard Proctor
Maximum Dry Density. In situ determinations of density during fill and asphaltic placement on site are
required to demonstrate that the specified placement density is achieved. Terraprobe is a CNSC certified
operator of appropriate nuclear density gauges for this work and can provide sampling and testing
services for the project as necessary, with our qualified technical staff.
Concrete will be specified in accordance with the requirements of CAN3 - CSA A23.1. Terraprobe
maintains a CSA certified concrete laboratory and can provide concrete sampling and testing services for
the project as necessary.
Terraprobe staff can also provide quality control services for Building Envelope, Roofing and Structural
Steel, as necessary, for the Structural and Architectural quality control requirements of the project.
Terraprobe is certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau under W178.1-1996.
5.0
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT
5.1
Procedures
This investigation has been carried out using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods
consistent with those ordinarily exercised by Terraprobe and other engineering practitioners, working
under similar conditions and subject to the time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this
project. The discussions and recommendations that have been presented are based on the factual data
obtained from this investigation.
Terraprobe
Page No. 16
Toronto Zoo
December 18, 2013
File No. 11-13-3145
The drilling and test pit excavation work was carried out by drilling and excavating contractors and was
observed and recorded by Terraprobe on a full time basis. The borings were made by a continuous flight
power auger machine using both solid and hollow stem augers. The Terraprobe technician logged the
borings and examined the samples as they were obtained. The samples obtained were sealed in clean, airtight containers and transferred to the Terraprobe laboratory, where they were reviewed for consistency of
description by a geotechnical engineer. Ground water observations were made in the boreholes as drilling
proceeded. Five monitoring wells installed on site to permit long term ground water monitoring and insitu conductivity tests.
The samples of the strata penetrated were obtained using the technique, Split-Barrel Method,
ASTM D1586. The samples were taken at intervals. The conventional interval sampling procedure used
for this investigation does not recover continuous samples of soil at any borehole location. There is
consequently some interpolation of the borehole layering between samples, therefore, the indications of
changes in stratigraphy as shown on the borehole logs are approximate.
It must be recognized that there are special risks whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied
to identify subsurface conditions. A comprehensive sampling and testing programme implemented in
accordance with the most stringent level of care may fail to detect certain conditions. Terraprobe has
assumed for the purposes of providing design parameters and advice, that the conditions that exist
between sampling points are similar to those found at the sample locations.
It may not be possible to drill a sufficient number of boreholes or sample and report them in a way that
would provide all the subsurface information and geotechnical advice to completely identify all aspects of
the site and works that could affect construction costs, techniques, equipment and scheduling. Contractors
bidding on or undertaking work on the project must be directed to draw their own conclusions as to how
the subsurface conditions may affect them, based on their own investigations and their own
interpretations of the factual investigation results, and their approach to the construction works, cognizant
of the risks implicit in the subsurface investigation activities.
5.2
Changes in Site and Scope
It must be recognized that the passage of time, natural occurrences, and direct or indirect human
intervention at or near the site have the potential to alter subsurface conditions. In particular, caution
should be exercised in the consideration of contractual responsibilities as they relate to control of seepage,
disturbance of soils, and frost protection.
The design parameters provided and the engineering advice offered in this report are based on the factual
data obtained from this investigation made at the site by Terraprobe and are intended for use by the owner
and its retained design consultants in the preliminary design phase of the project. If there are changes to
the project scope and development features, the interpretations made of the subsurface information, the
geotechnical design parameters, advice and comments relating to constructability issues and quality
Terraprobe
Page No. 17
FIGURES
TERRAPROBE INC.
APPENDICES
TERRAPROBE INC.
APPENDIX A
TERRAPROBE INC.
Terraprobe
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
SAMPLING METHODS
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
AS
CORE
DP
FV
GS
SS
ST
WS
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance ('N' values) is defined as the number of
blows by a hammer weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30
in.) required to advance a standard 50 mm (2 in.) diameter split spoon sampler for a
distance of 0.3 m (12 in.).
auger sample
cored sample
direct push
field vane
grab sample
split spoon
shelby tube
wash sample
Dynamic Cone Test (DCT) resistance is defined as the number of blows by a hammer
weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) required to
advance a conical steel point of 50 mm (2 in.) diameter and with 60° sides on 'A' size
drill rods for a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.)."
COHESIONLESS SOILS
Compactness
COHESIVE SOILS
‘N’ value
very loose
loose
compact
dense
very dense
<4
4 – 10
10 – 30
30 – 50
> 50
Consistency
COMPOSITION
‘N’ value
Undrained Shear
Strength (kPa)
<2
2–4
4–8
8 – 15
15 – 30
> 30
< 12
12 – 25
25 – 50
50 – 100
100 – 200
> 200
very soft
soft
firm
stiff
very stiff
hard
Term (e.g)
trace silt
some silt
silty
sand and silt
% by weight
< 10
10 – 20
20 – 35
> 35
TESTS AND SYMBOLS Unstabilized water level
MH
mechanical sieve and hydrometer
analysis
w, wc
water content
wL, LL
liquid limit
wP, PL
plastic limit
IP, PI
plasticity index
k
coefficient of permeability γ
soil unit weight, bulk
Cc
compression index
Gs
specific gravity
cv
coefficient of consolidation
φ’
internal friction angle
mv
coefficient of compressibility
c’
effective cohesion
e
void ratio
cu
undrained shear strength
st
1 water level measurement
nd
2
water level measurement
Most recent water level measurement
Undrained shear strength from field vane (with sensitivity)
FIELD MOISTURE DESCRIPTIONS
Damp refers to a soil sample that does not exhibit any observable pore water from field/hand inspection.
Moist refers to a soil sample that exhibits evidence of existing pore water (e.g. sample feels cool, cohesive soil is at plastic
limit) but does not have visible pore water
Wet
refers to a soil sample that has visible pore water
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 1
Client
: Zooshare Biogas Coperative Inc. c/o Riepma Consultants Inc.
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
Date started : October 1, 2013
Location : Scarborough, Ontario
131.0
0.6
1
130.1
1.5
GROUND SURFACE
FILL, silty sand, trace gravel, trace clay,
trace rootlets, trace organics, compact,
brown, moist
1
SS
10
20
30
40
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Moisture / Plasticity
Dynamic Cone
Instrument
Details
: Solid stem augers
Penetration Test Values
(Blows / 0.3m)
Headspace
Vapour
Number
Graphic Log
131.6
Description
SAMPLES
Elevation Scale
(m)
0
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
1 of 1
Elevation Datum : Geodetic
SPT 'N' Value
: CME 55, track-mounted
Type
: E: 647084, N: 4853158 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
20
131
FILL, sand, some silt, trace gravel,
brown with black and orange, compact,
moist
2
SS
16
SAND, some silt, trace gravel, dense,
brown, moist to wet
3
SS
35
4
SS
47
5
SS
90 /
225mm
130
2
3
128.6
3.1
SAND AND SILT, trace large gravel,
very dense, brown to grey, wet
(GLACIAL TILL)
...at 2.3m, spoon wet
5 85 (10)
129
128
4
127.0
4.6
SAND AND SILT, trace clay inclusions,
very dense, grey, moist to wet
127
6
SS
53
5
126
6
125.5
6.1
125.0
6.6
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, firm,
grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
library: library - terraprobe gint.glb report: terraprobe soil log file: 11-13-3145 bh logs.gpj
END OF BOREHOLE
Wet cave to 2.1 m below ground surface
upon completion of drilling.
50 mm monitoring well installed.
7
SS
6
WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date
Water Depth (m)
Elevation (m)
Oct 10, 2013
2.1
129.5
Oct 31, 2013
2.0
129.6
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 2
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
1
compact, brown with orange, moist
SS
17
131
2
SS
20
Dynamic Cone
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
1
Number
Elevation Scale
(m)
130.5
0.8
GROUND SURFACE
FILL, silty sand, trace gravel, compact,
brown, moist
Graphic Log
131.3
Description
: Solid stem augers
(Blows / 0.3m)
Instrument
Details
Drilling Method
SAMPLES
SPT 'N' Value
0
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
1 of 2
Headspace
Vapour
Type
: E: 647128, N: 4853151 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
130
129.8
1.5
brown, wet
3
SS
32
4
SS
39
5
SS
50 /
125mm
2
129
3
128.3
3.1
SAND AND SILT, trace gravel, very
dense, grey, wet
128
4
127
...at 4.6 m, some clayey inclusions,
dense, moist
6
SS
39
5
126
6
125.2
6.1
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, soft
to firm, grey, moist to wet
(GLACIAL TILL)
7
SS
5
125
7
124
8
8
SS
7
123
9
122
9
SS
3
10
121
10
(continued next page)
SS
4
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 2
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
Type
SPT 'N' Value
10
SS
4
120
12
119.1
12.2
SILT AND SAND, some clay, trace
gravel, compact, grey, moist
118.5
12.8
END OF BOREHOLE
119
11
SS
28
: Solid stem augers
(Blows / 0.3m)
Dynamic Cone
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Number
(continued)
(GLACIAL TILL) (continued)
11
Graphic Log
Description
SAMPLES
Instrument
Details
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
2 of 2
Headspace
Vapour
Elevation Scale
(m)
: E: 647128, N: 4853151 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 3
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
130.4
0.8
1
GROUND SURFACE
90mm TOPSOIL
FILL, sandy silt, trace clay, trace gravel,
brown, moist
dense, brown with some orange, moist
1
SS
13
2
SS
38
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
W1
W2
Unstabilized
Water Level
Dynamic Cone
Instrument
Details
: Hollow stem augers
(Blows / 0.3m)
Headspace
Vapour
Number
Graphic Log
131.2
Description
SAMPLES
Elevation Scale
(m)
0
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
1 of 2
SPT 'N' Value
Type
: E: 647153, N: 4853164 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
131
130
129.7
1.5
COARSE SAND, some silt, trace gravel,
compact, brown, wet
3
SS
26
2
128.9
2.3
129
SAND AND SILT, trace gravel, dense,
grey, wet
4
SS
36
5
SS
48
1
ST
6
SS
3
127.4
3.8
4
CLAY AND SILT, trace sand, trace
gravel, stiff, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
128
1 2 43 54
127
13
5
126
6
125.1
6.1
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, trace
gravel, compact, grey, wet
7
SS
14
125
7
124
123.6
7.6
8
SAND AND SILT, some clay, trace
gravel, loose to compact, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
8
SS
12
123
9
122
9
SS
1
FV
8
10
1.8
10
SS
121
13
= 108 kPa
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 3
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
Type
SPT 'N' Value
10
SS
13
(Blows / 0.3m)
Dynamic Cone
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
W1
W2
120
12
119
...at 12.2 m, dense
11
SS
32
13
118
12
14
SS
32
117
15
116
13
SS
43
115.5
15.7
END OF BOREHOLE
Water level and cave not measured upon
completion of drilling.
W1: 50 mm monitoring well installed.
W2: 50 mm monitoring well installed.
W1 WATER LEVELS
Date
Water Depth (m)
Oct 10, 2013
1.3
Oct 31, 2013
1.2
Elevation (m)
129.9
130.0
W2 WATER LEVELS
Date
Water Depth (m)
Oct 10, 2013
14.5
Oct 31, 2013
8.3
Elevation (m)
116.7
122.9
Unstabilized
Water Level
Number
(continued)
gravel, loose to compact, grey, moist
11
Graphic Log
Description
SAMPLES
Instrument
Details
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
2 of 2
Headspace
Vapour
Elevation Scale
(m)
: E: 647153, N: 4853164 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 4
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
1
some organics, brown with orange to
black, compact, moist
SS
11
131
2
SS
17
Dynamic Cone
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
1
Number
Elevation Scale
(m)
130.5
0.8
GROUND SURFACE
FILL, silty sand, trace to some clay,
trace gravel, trace rootlets, trace
organics, compact, brown to dark brown,
moist
Graphic Log
131.3
Description
: Solid stem augers
(Blows / 0.3m)
Instrument
Details
Drilling Method
SAMPLES
SPT 'N' Value
0
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
1 of 2
Headspace
Vapour
Type
: E: 647158, N: 4853137 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
130
129.8
1.5
brown, wet
3
SS
34
4
SS
37
5
SS
58
2
129
...at 2.3 m, trace silty seams
3
128.3
3.1
SAND AND SILT, very dense, brownish
grey, wet
128
4
127
...at 4.6 m, grey
6
SS
21
5
126
6
125.2
6.1
(GLACIAL TILL)
7
SS
2
125
7
124
8
8
SS
4
123
9
122
9
SS
6
10
121
120.6
10.7
(continued on next page)
10
SS
40
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 4
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
END OF BOREHOLE
10
SS
40
Dynamic Cone
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
SPT 'N' Value
Graphic Log
(continued)
gravel, dense, grey, moist
Type
120.0
11.3
Description
: Solid stem augers
(Blows / 0.3m)
Instrument
Details
Drilling Method
SAMPLES
Number
11
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
2 of 2
Headspace
Vapour
Elevation Scale
(m)
: E: 647158, N: 4853137 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 5
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
GROUND SURFACE
FILL, silty sand, trace clay, trace gravel,
trace glass fragments, trace rootlets,
trace organics, compact, dark brown,
moist
1
SS
15
2
SS
11
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Dynamic Cone
Instrument
Details
: Solid stem augers
(Blows / 0.3m)
Headspace
Vapour
Number
Graphic Log
131.4
Description
SAMPLES
Elevation Scale
(m)
0
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
1 of 2
SPT 'N' Value
Type
: E: 647170, N: 4853109 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
131
...at 0.8 m, some organics, black
1
129.9
1.5
130
SAND, some silt, trace gravel, compact,
brown, moist to wet
3
SS
27
4
SS
22
5
SS
55
2
3
128.4
3.1
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, some
clayey silt layers, very dense to hard,
grey, moist to wet
129
128
4
127
...at 4.6 m, very stiff to compact
6
SS
21
0 36 57 7
5
126
6
125.3
6.1
(GLACIAL TILL)
7
SS
7
125
7
124
8
8
SS
2
123
9
9
SS
3
122
10
121
10
SS
5
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 5
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
Type
SPT 'N' Value
10
SS
5
: Solid stem augers
(Blows / 0.3m)
Dynamic Cone
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
120
12
119.2
12.2
gravel, dense, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
11
SS
38
119
118.6
12.8
END OF BOREHOLE
WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date
Water Depth (m)
Elevation (m)
Oct 10, 2013
3.0
128.4
Oct 31, 2013
2.3
129.1
Unstabilized
Water Level
Number
(continued)
11
Graphic Log
Description
SAMPLES
Instrument
Details
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
2 of 2
Headspace
Vapour
Elevation Scale
(m)
: E: 647170, N: 4853109 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 6
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
130.1
0.8
1
129.4
1.5
GROUND SURFACE
75mm TOPSOIL
1
SS
10
dense, brown with orange, moist
2
SS
36
SAND, some silt, trace gravel, compact,
brown, wet
3
SS
26
FILL, silty sand, trace gravel, trace clay,
brown, moist
SAND AND SILT, very dense, grey, wet
40
80
120
160
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Field Vane
Lab Vane
Instrument
Details
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
Liquid
Limit
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
130
4
SS
51
128
127.5
3.4
5A
SAND AND SILT, some clay, trace to
some gravel, very stiff, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
SS
25
5B
127
4
126.3
4.6
5
SANDY SILT, some clay to clayey, trace
gravel, firm, grey, moist to wet
(GLACIAL TILL)
1
ST
6
SS
2
ST
11 40 35 14
7
126
125
6
10
20
30
40
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
3
7
Dynamic Cone
129
2
128.6
2.3
(Blows / 0.3m)
Headspace
Vapour
Number
Graphic Log
130.9
Description
SAMPLES
Elevation Scale
(m)
0
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
1 of 2
SPT 'N' Value
Type
: E: 647189, N: 4853133 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
124.0
6.9
(GLACIAL TILL)
7
SS
8
8
SS
19
9
SS
58
124
...at 7.6 m, very dense
8
123
122
9
...at 9.1 m, dense
10
SS
49
121
10
...at 10.7 m, compact
11
SS
29
120
4 27 51 18
...at 5.6m, Lab
Vane=40kPa,
Sensitivity = 6.7
Terraprobe
BOREHOLE LOG 6
Client
Project No.:
Project
: Toronto Zoo
Type
SPT 'N' Value
11
SS
29
119
12
12
SS
27
118
13
13
14
SS
23
116
15
...at 15.2 m, dense
14
115.2
15.7
END OF BOREHOLE
117
SS
39
(Blows / 0.3m)
Dynamic Cone
10
20
30
40
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
40
80
Field Vane
Lab Vane
120
160
Plastic
Natural
Limit
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Number
(continued)
11
Graphic Log
Description
SAMPLES
Instrument
Details
Drilling Method
SOIL PROFILE
Elev
Depth
(m)
2 of 2
Headspace
Vapour
Elevation Scale
(m)
: E: 647189, N: 4853133 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
Sheet No. :
11-13-3145
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR SA SI CL
APPENDIX B
TERRAPROBE INC.
Terraprobe
TEST PIT LOG 1
Client
: RIEPMA CONSULTANTS INC.
Project No. :
13-13-3142
Project
: Biogas Facility
Date excavated :
October 2, 2013
Sheet No.
1 of 1
Location : Toronto Zoo - Zoo Road / Meadowvale Road
0.0
131.5 GROUND SURFACE
FILL, silty sand, trace cobbles, some
asphalt, trace metal, dark brown
131.0
130.7
0.8
FILL, organics, dark brown and black
1.0
130.5
130.4
1.1
SAND, trace to some silt, brown
becoming grey
1.5
130.0
2.0
129.5
129.0
2.5
END OF TEST PIT
Unstabilized water level measured at 2.5m;
test pit caved to 2.2m below grade upon
completion of excavation
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
Plastic
Limit
Natural
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
Field Vane
Lab Vane
40
80
120
160
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Headspace
Vapour
Description
Elevation Scale
(m)
Elev
Depth
(m)
SAMPLES
Graphic Log
SOIL PROFILE
0.5
library: library - terraprobe gint.glb report: terraprobe test pit log file: 13-13-3142-brogas facility.gpj
Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Type
: BACKHOE, rubber-tired
Number
: E: 647121, N: 4853149 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
:
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR
SA
SI
CL
Terraprobe
TEST PIT LOG 2
Client
Project No. :
13-13-3142
Project
: Biogas Facility
Date excavated :
October 2, 2013
Sheet No.
1 of 1
0.0
FILL, silty sand, trace gravel, dark brown
131.0
0.3
FILL, organics, dark brown to black
131.0
0.5
130.5
1.0
130.2
1.1
MEDIUM SAND with COARSE SAND,
brown becoming grey
130.0
1.5
129.5
2.0
129.0
2.5
128.5
3.0
128.2
3.1
END OF TEST PIT
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
Plastic
Limit
Natural
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
Field Vane
Lab Vane
40
80
120
160
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Description
Headspace
Vapour
Elev
Depth
(m)
SAMPLES
Graphic Log
SOIL PROFILE
Elevation Scale
(m)
Type
Number
: E: 647156, N: 4853142 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
:
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR
SA
SI
CL
Terraprobe
TEST PIT LOG 3
Client
Project No. :
13-13-3142
Project
: Biogas Facility
Date excavated :
October 2, 2013
Sheet No.
1 of 1
0.0
FILL, silt and sand, some gravel, dark
brown
131.0
0.5
130.5
0.6
130.3
0.8
MEDIUM SAND, brown becoming grey
130.5
1.0
130.0
1.5
129.5
2.0
129.0
2.5
128.7
2.4
128.6
2.5
128.5
2.6
128.1
3.0
COARSE SAND, brown
SAND, some clay, hard, grey
SAND and SILT, dense, grey
END OF TEST PIT
128.5
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
Plastic
Limit
Natural
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
Field Vane
Lab Vane
40
80
120
160
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Description
Headspace
Vapour
Elev
Depth
(m)
SAMPLES
Graphic Log
SOIL PROFILE
Elevation Scale
(m)
Type
Number
: E: 647173, N: 4853141 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
:
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR
SA
SI
CL
Terraprobe
TEST PIT LOG 4
Client
Project No. :
13-13-3142
Project
: Biogas Facility
Date excavated :
October 2, 2013
Sheet No.
1 of 1
0.0
FILL, silty sand, some gravel, brown
131.0
130.8
0.4
0.5
130.6
0.6
MEDIUM SAND, trace to some silt, brown
becoming grey
130.5
1.0
130.0
1.5
129.5
2.0
129.0
2.5
128.8
2.4
128.7
2.5
COARSE SAND with FINE GRAVEL
SAND, trace to some silt, dense, grey
128.5
128.2
3.0
END OF TEST PIT
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
Plastic
Limit
Natural
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
Field Vane
Lab Vane
40
80
120
160
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Description
Headspace
Vapour
Elev
Depth
(m)
SAMPLES
Graphic Log
SOIL PROFILE
Elevation Scale
(m)
Type
Number
: E: 647143, N: 4853166 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
:
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR
SA
SI
CL
Terraprobe
TEST PIT LOG 5
Client
Project No. :
13-13-3142
Project
: Biogas Facility
Date excavated :
October 2, 2013
Sheet No.
1 of 1
0.0
FILL, silty sand, some gravel, brown
131.5
0.5
131.0
130.8
0.8
1.0
130.6
1.0
MEDIUM SAND, light brown becoming
grey
130.5
1.5
130.0
2.0
129.5
2.5
129.2
2.4
129.1
2.5
COARSE SAND, some gravel, brown
SAND, trace silt, dense, brownish grey
129.0
128.6
3.0
END OF TEST PIT
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
Plastic
Limit
Natural
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
Field Vane
Lab Vane
40
80
120
160
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Description
Headspace
Vapour
Elev
Depth
(m)
SAMPLES
Graphic Log
SOIL PROFILE
Elevation Scale
(m)
Type
Number
: E: 647106, N: 4853155 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
:
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR
SA
SI
CL
Terraprobe
TEST PIT LOG 6
Client
Project No. :
13-13-3142
Project
: Biogas Facility
Date excavated :
October 2, 2013
Sheet No.
1 of 1
0.0
FILL, sandy silt, some gravel, brown
131.0
0.5
130.6
0.8
130.5
1.0
130.4
1.0
MEDIUM SAND, trace to some silt, brown
becoming grey
130.0
1.5
129.5
2.0
129.0
2.4
2.5
SAND with COARSE SAND, trace silt,
grey
129.0
128.5
128.4
3.0
END OF TEST PIT
Unconfined
Pocket Penetrometer
Plastic
Limit
Natural
Water Content
Liquid
Limit
Field Vane
Lab Vane
40
80
120
160
PL
MC
LL
10
20
30
Unstabilized
Water Level
Description
Headspace
Vapour
Elev
Depth
(m)
SAMPLES
Graphic Log
SOIL PROFILE
Elevation Scale
(m)
Type
Number
: E: 647170, N: 4853095 (UTM 17T)
Rig type
Depth Scale (m)
Position
:
Lab Data
and
Comments
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION (%)
(MIT)
GR
SA
SI
CL
APPENDIX C
TERRAPROBE INC.
Percent Passing (%)
0
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
60
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
100
0.0001
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
MIT
SYSTEM
2mm
COBBLES
60µm
GRAVEL
COARSE
MEDIUM
2µm
SAND
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
SILT
FINE
CLAY
MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID
Sample
Depth (m)
Elev. (m)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
6
ST1
4.1
126.8
11
40
35
14
6
ST2
5.6
125.3
4
27
51
18
Title:
Terraprobe
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3
(905) 796-2650
(Fines, %)
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SAND AND SILT TO SANDY SILT, SOME CLAY, TRACE TO SOME GRAVEL
(GLACIAL TILL)
File No.:
11-13-3145
Percent Retained (%)
100
Percent Passing (%)
0
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
60
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
100
0.0001
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
MIT
SYSTEM
2mm
COBBLES
60µm
GRAVEL
COARSE
MEDIUM
2µm
SAND
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
SILT
FINE
CLAY
MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID
5
Sample
Depth (m)
Elev. (m)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
SS6
4.8
126.6
0
36
57
7
Title:
Terraprobe
(905) 796-2650
File No.:
SANDY SILT, TRACE CLAY
11-13-3145
(Fines, %)
100
Percent Passing (%)
0
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
60
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
100
0.0001
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
MIT
SYSTEM
2mm
COBBLES
60µm
GRAVEL
COARSE
MEDIUM
2µm
SAND
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
SILT
FINE
CLAY
MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID
3
Sample
Depth (m)
Elev. (m)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
ST1
4.1
127.1
1
2
43
54
Title:
Terraprobe
(905) 796-2650
File No.:
(Fines, %)
CLAY AND SILT, TRACE SAND, TRACE GRAVEL (GLACIAL TILL)
11-13-3145
100
Percent Passing (%)
0
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
60
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
100
0.0001
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
MIT
SYSTEM
2mm
COBBLES
60µm
GRAVEL
COARSE
MEDIUM
2µm
SAND
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
SILT
FINE
CLAY
MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID
1
Sample
Depth (m)
Elev. (m)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
SS4
2.5
129.1
5
85
Title:
Terraprobe
(905) 796-2650
File No.:
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
SAND, TRACE SILT, TRACE GRAVEL
11-13-3145
(Fines, %)
(10)
100
Terraprobe
Job Number:
Project:
Location:
Client:
CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY SHEET
11-13-3145
Toronto Zoo
Scarborough, On.
Zoo Share Biogas Corp.
BH No.: 3
Sample No.: ST1
Depth of Sample: 13'17"
Lab Number:
Tested By:
Test Start Date:
Test Completion Date:
APPARATUS DATA
Ring Mass =
Mass Ring + Soil =
SAMPLE DATA
107.68 g
270.08 g
Load Increment Ratio =
Moment Arm Ratio =
Top Cap Mass =
Ring Height =
392.13 g
25.27 mm
Ring Diameter =
63.35 mm
WATER CONTENT DATA
Container or Tare #
Mass Container (g)
Mass Container + Wet Soil (g)
Mass Container + Dry Soil (g)
Mass Water (g)
Mass Dry Soil (g)
Water Content, w (%)
Applied Mass (kg)
0
0.5
1
2
4
8
16
32
8
2
0.5
1219B
SR
8-Oct-13
22-Oct-13
Applied
Stress
(kPa)
1.2
18.4
35.6
69.9
138.7
276.1
551.0
1100.7
276.1
69.9
18.4
Test Condition :
Test Method :
INITIAL - TRIMMINGS
Top
Bottom
Side
111D
319
345
30
30.98
30.32
114.7
83.53
102.13
96.95
72.43
87.37
17.75
11.1
14.76
66.95
41.45
57.05
26.5
26.8
25.9
Initial
Height
(mm)
25.270
25.270
25.204
25.122
24.986
24.810
24.540
24.142
23.370
23.704
24.084
Initial Soil Wet Mass, MT =
Initial Soil Height, Ho =
1
11.04
Area, A = 0.003152 m2
Initial Volume, V0 = 0.0000797 m3
Initial Water Content, w0 =
26.4 %
Specific Gravity, Gs =
2.702
Mass of Solids, Ms =
128.5 g
Volume of Solids, Vs = 0.000048 m3
Height of Solids, Hs =
15.09 mm
Initial Void Ratio, e0 =
0.675
Initial Saturation, S0 =
105.6 %
Final Saturation, Sf =
110.5 %
Natural
A
FINAL Full Sample
RING
391.81
550.10
519.07
31.03
127.26
24.4
162.40 g
25.27 mm
SOIL DESCRIPTION / CLASSIFICATION
SILTY CLAY, trace sand
Change in
Final
Initial Void
Final Void
Height
Void Ratio,
D H (mm)
Ratio, e
Ratio, e
(mm)
De
25.270
0.00
0.675
0.000
0.675
25.204
0.066
0.675
0.004
0.671
25.122
0.082
0.671
0.005
0.665
24.986
0.136
0.665
0.009
0.656
24.810
0.176
0.656
0.012
0.644
24.540
0.27
0.644
0.018
0.627
24.142
0.398
0.627
0.026
0.600
23.370
0.772
0.600
0.051
0.549
23.704
-0.334
0.549
-0.022
0.571
24.084
-0.380
0.571
-0.025
0.596
24.504
-0.420
0.596
-0.028
0.624
t90 (min)
18.0625
7.5625
2.25
3.0625
3.0625
2.25
4
cv
(cm /sec)
mv
(m^2/kN)
Permeability
k (cm/s)
0.00124
0.00295
0.00981
0.00711
0.00696
0.00918
0.00486
0.000152
0.000189
0.000158
0.000103
0.000079
0.000059
0.000058
1.9E-08
5.5E-08
1.5E-07
7.2E-08
5.4E-08
5.3E-08
2.8E-08
2
Terraprobe
Job Number:
Project:
Location:
Client:
11-13-3145
Toronto Zoo
Scarborough, On.
BH No.: 3
Sample No.: ST1
Lab Number:
Tested By:
Test Start Date:
1219B
SR
8-Oct-13
22-Oct-13
Summary of Consolidation Test Results
11-13-3145
Coeffecient of Consolidation,
cm2/s
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
1
10
100
1000
10000
Effective Stress (kPa)
Coefficient of Volume
Compressibility, m2/kN
11-13-3145
2.00E-04
1.80E-04
1.60E-04
1.40E-04
1.20E-04
1.00E-04
8.00E-05
6.00E-05
4.00E-05
2.00E-05
0.00E+00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Terraprobe
11-13-3145 BH 6, ST2
0.480
0.460
0.440
Void Ratio, e
0.420
0.400
0.380
0.360
0.340
0.320
0.300
1
10
100
1000
10000
Terraprobe
Job Number:
Project:
Location:
Client:
11-13-3145
Toronto Zoo
Scarborough, On.
BH No.: 6
Sample No.: ST2
Lab Number:
Tested By:
Test Start Date:
APPARATUS DATA
Ring Mass =
Mass Ring + Soil =
SAMPLE DATA
75.23 g
204.47 g
Load Increment Ratio =
Moment Arm Ratio =
Top Cap Mass =
Ring Height =
504.36 g
19.04 mm
Ring Diameter =
63.44 mm
WATER CONTENT DATA
Container or Tare #
Mass Container (g)
Mass Container + Wet Soil (g)
Mass Container + Dry Soil (g)
Mass Water (g)
Mass Dry Soil (g)
Water Content, w (%)
Applied Mass (kg)
0
0.5
1
2
4
8
16
32
8
2
0.5
1219A
SR
8-Oct-13
22-Oct-13
Applied
Stress
(kPa)
1.6
18.7
35.8
70.1
138.6
275.7
549.8
1098.0
275.7
70.1
18.7
Test Condition :
Test Method :
INITIAL - TRIMMINGS
Top
Bottom
Side
356
72
33
30.15
30.33
30.09
106.51
136.7
127.05
94.34
126.42
113.82
12.17
10.28
13.23
64.19
96.09
83.73
19.0
10.7
15.8
Initial
Height
(mm)
19.040
19.040
18.846
18.696
18.484
18.240
17.906
17.538
17.096
17.130
17.280
Initial Soil Wet Mass, MT =
Initial Soil Height, Ho =
1
11.04
Area, A = 0.003161 m2
Initial Volume, V0 = 0.0000602 m3
Initial Water Content, w0 =
15.2 %
Specific Gravity, Gs =
2.723
Mass of Solids, Ms =
112.2 g
Volume of Solids, Vs = 0.000041 m3
Height of Solids, Hs =
13.04 mm
Initial Void Ratio, e0 =
0.460
Initial Saturation, S0 =
89.7 %
Final Saturation, Sf =
117.9 %
Natural
A
FINAL Full Sample
RING
357.45
481.17
465.9
15.27
108.45
14.1
129.24 g
19.04 mm
SOIL DESCRIPTION / CLASSIFICATION
SILTY CLAY, trace sand
Change in
Final
Initial Void
Final Void
Height
Void Ratio,
D H (mm)
Ratio, e
Ratio, e
(mm)
De
19.040
0.00
0.460
0.000
0.460
18.846
0.194
0.460
0.015
0.445
18.696
0.15
0.445
0.012
0.434
18.484
0.212
0.434
0.016
0.418
18.240
0.244
0.418
0.019
0.399
17.906
0.334
0.399
0.026
0.373
17.538
0.368
0.373
0.028
0.345
17.096
0.442
0.345
0.034
0.311
17.130
-0.034
0.311
-0.003
0.314
17.280
-0.150
0.314
-0.012
0.325
17.482
-0.202
0.325
-0.015
0.341
t90 (min)
64
9
9
6.25
5.0625
4
2.25
cv
(cm /sec)
mv
(m^2/kN)
Permeability
k (cm/s)
0.00020
0.00137
0.00134
0.00189
0.00225
0.00273
0.00461
0.000595
0.000465
0.000331
0.000193
0.000134
0.000075
0.000046
1.1E-08
6.3E-08
4.4E-08
3.6E-08
2.9E-08
2.0E-08
2.1E-08
2
Terraprobe
Job Number:
Project:
Location:
Client:
11-13-3145
Toronto Zoo
Scarborough, On.
BH No.: 6
Sample No.: ST2
Lab Number:
Tested By:
Test Start Date:
1219A
SR
8-Oct-13
22-Oct-13
11-13-3145
Coeffecient of Consolidation,
cm2/s
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
1
10
100
1000
10000
11-13-3145
Coefficient of Volume
COmpressibility, m2/kN
7.00E-04
6.00E-04
5.00E-04
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-04
0.00E+00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Terraprobe
11-13-3145 BH 3, ST1
0.690
0.670
0.650
Void Ratio, e
0.630
0.610
0.590
0.570
0.550
0.530
1
10
100
1000
10000
APPENDIX D
TERRAPROBE INC.

Geotechnical Report

Transcription

Similar documents

March 6, 2008 08-042.ROl N-J Excavating R.R. 2 Moorefield

roanoke_sg_ISU - Illinois State Geological Survey

Cyclura lewisi - San Diego Zoo Global Library

Satanic Leaf-tailed Gecko

The Inkwinks

Signicade Deluxe

Capuchinbird

ABC BOOK - Btsb.com

Nilgai